ABDUL RAZAK P KUNHALAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been found guilty, convicted and sentenced in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I Act. This Court in revision had modified the sentence. The petitioner now faces the sentence of imprisonment till rising of court. There is a further direction "to pay" an amount of Rs.90,000/- by way of compensation to the complainant. The default sentence is also prescribed. There is a further direction that the petitioner shall surrender before the learned Magistrate positively within two months from 20.12.2006 and shall "deposit" the entire amount of compensation before court positively on that date. Default sentence is also prescribed. For the sake of clarity, I extract the relevant operative portion in para.3 of the order passed in revision below:

(2.) The petitioner/accused and the respondent/complainant have now come before this Court with this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Both of them submit that the amount of compensation has already been paid and received by the complainant. The petitioner had not appeared before the learned Magistrate within a period of two months as directed. The petitioner is willing to appear before the learned Magistrate to suffer the substantive sentence of imprisonment, but he apprehends that in view of the later statement that the amount must be "deposited" positively within two months, the default sentence may be enforced notwithstanding the admitted fact that the payment has been made to the complainant.

(3.) I do note that there is some confusion. In the earlier portion of para.3 extracted above, the direction is to pay the amount and later it has been directed that it shall be deposited. The petitioner contends that it has been paid thinking that that would be sufficient compliance.